Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: gblade30 on October 10, 2012, 02:58:49 PM
-
just wish that dar towers were a bit tougher like a vh for eg. just seems like the effort taken to kill one far outweighs the disadvantage of not having dar
or alter the downtimes... what do you guys think ?
-
Radar tower's are weak in game and real life, they aren't strong enough to take a whole lot. If a block of C4 were placed in the right spot at the base of a radar tower, it'd fall right down. What you are suggesting is that a radar tower should be strong enough to withstand up to 4k of high explosive bombs. That is downright outrageous.
But as an alternative to this, why don't we just get another radar tower and double the range? If one radar tower goes down, dar range is cut in half and then if taken down completely, poof - No radar.
-
I want to know how a 3 second burst from a P51 can bring down a tower? Or blow up a ammo bunker made of 4ft thick concrete? I can see barracks, and maybe even the fuel tanks, but not a huge tower made of angle iron and a reinforced concrete bunker.
I think there needs to be adjustments all across the board when it comes to OBJ hardness in the MA. Obviously, if HTC changes the OBJ hardness settings I'm sure they'd take a look at a lot of things because they have their tank HE shells scaled to the point of 2, 3, or 4 hits to destroy a building/OBJ that takes 312 lbs of damage.
I wont be once to call that the sky is falling, but ENY and OBJ values of the aircraft and gv's need a major tweek, as well as the hardness settings of all the OBJ as well. Tell me why the Me410 gets a 15 ENY and the Mossi Mk 6 gets 30???
-
i agree with dar towers being weak... but if that be the case the downtime should be a lot less. do you not think ???
-
I want to know how a 3 second burst from a P51 can bring down a tower? Or blow up a ammo bunker made of 4ft thick concrete? I can see barracks, and maybe even the fuel tanks, but not a huge tower made of angle iron and a reinforced concrete bunker.
I think there needs to be adjustments all across the board when it comes to OBJ hardness in the MA. Obviously, if HTC changes the OBJ hardness settings I'm sure they'd take a look at a lot of things because they have their tank HE shells scaled to the point of 2, 3, or 4 hits to destroy a building/OBJ that takes 312 lbs of damage.
I wont be once to call that the sky is falling, but ENY and OBJ values of the aircraft and gv's need a major tweek, as well as the hardness settings of all the OBJ as well. Tell me why the Me410 gets a 15 ENY and the Mossi Mk 6 gets 30???
+1 for that
-
chain home radar antennae were made of narrow angle iron and steel cable, actually pretty hard to destroy from the air unless you can place a bomb right at the base and lift the footing. those that were hit were usually back up within a day. decent cable cutters or a hacksaw would bring em down much easier.
-
One thing that is seemingly being ignored is that while towers are structurally weak, they are also pretty resistant to blast damage
due to the open framework design. Alot more vulnerable would be the vacuum tubes in the transmitter/receiver instead.
-
I think what we really need to do is make it so damage done by a bullet is not the same as damage from a rocket or bomb, or even a large-caliber cannon.
-
I think what we really need to do is make it so damage done by a bullet is not the same as damage from a rocket or bomb, or even a large-caliber cannon.
It isn't. In terms if destroying OBJ's, the HE rounds from aircraft cannon offer 2 distinct advantages over the the FMJ fired from an MG. First, cannons offer about 4 X's the amount of damage per round and secondly if you miss with cannon fire you may still damage the OBJ thanks to splash damage. Sure, rates of fire and ammo load mean something but in terms of how they are dealt per round there is a difference. Also, ordnance offers even more damage and an even bigger area of effect for splash damage.
I do not know how HTC has things coded, but it appears that vs OBJ they use a "lb" value for each round, rocket, or bomb. Take that vs the "hardness" of the OBJ and you can determine how many rounds it takes to destroy that OBJ.
I think it would be a whole lot easier for HTC to simply change the hardness settings for the different OBJ's and be done with it. I mean seriously, an ammo bunker made of reinforce concrete gets the SAME setting as barracks made of canvass and plywood???
-
Object's hardness values aren't set to reflect any sort of "realistic" attributes based on construction, materials and so in. Hardness and downtimes are mostly set with gameplay considerations in mind.
-
I agree with what he is saying when straffing the DAR
Here is and exeriment you can try at home:
Step 1:
Build a tower out of thin steel cables in the shape of a radar tower
Step 2:
shoot with #7 birdshot from a 12 gauge shotgun
Step 3:
Light M80 underneath the tower
Results:
The shotgun does little damage because it passes through the open spaces of the tower where as the M80 destroys the tower because of the shockwave
My opinion is that bullets should do little damage the radar becuase most, in real life, pass through without hitting anything
if you don't belive me try it at home
-
#7 birdshot huh? Should it be high brass or low brass?
What kind of choke will the shotgun have?
How far from the tower shall I stand?
This experiment is full of holes.
:noid
Towers and ord bunkers should be stronger in my opinion.
-
It isn't. In terms if destroying OBJ's, the HE rounds from aircraft cannon offer 2 distinct advantages over the the FMJ fired from an MG. First, cannons offer about 4 X's the amount of damage per round and secondly if you miss with cannon fire you may still damage the OBJ thanks to splash damage. Sure, rates of fire and ammo load mean something but in terms of how they are dealt per round there is a difference. Also, ordnance offers even more damage and an even bigger area of effect for splash damage.
I do not know how HTC has things coded, but it appears that vs OBJ they use a "lb" value for each round, rocket, or bomb. Take that vs the "hardness" of the OBJ and you can determine how many rounds it takes to destroy that OBJ.
I think it would be a whole lot easier for HTC to simply change the hardness settings for the different OBJ's and be done with it. I mean seriously, an ammo bunker made of reinforce concrete gets the SAME setting as barracks made of canvass and plywood???
I'm aware of all this, but you miss my point.
.50 cal is not even the same type of damage as a cannon shell in real life. You would have to shoot clean through a beam with an MG to break it, but with a cannon, a few rounds, or with a 30mm, even 1 or 2, might suffice, due to the explosion.
Where a .50 will punch through some concrete, and make a hole, a cannon shell is going to blow a fair sized chunk out of the wall.
Its more than just ammount of damage done, and blast radius, and simply adjusting the hardness will affect cannons which could do some real damage.
Take the BK 5, for example. It fires an HE round, and so doesn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. If you bump up the hardness, theres a chance it might start bouncing rounds off the dar tower, or bunker.
Or the Mk 108. It fires a shell large enough to do some not inconsiderable damage to a concrete wall. But it penetrates very little armor due to being both an HE round, and having a low velocity. Bumping up the hardness would unrealisitically and unintentionally nerf the 30mm as well.
The reason is that concrete is not the same as a steel bar, which is not the same as armor plate, which is not the same as a wooden flight deck.
-
I'm aware of all this, but you miss my point.
.50 cal is not even the same type of damage as a cannon shell in real life. You would have to shoot clean through a beam with an MG to break it, but with a cannon, a few rounds, or with a 30mm, even 1 or 2, might suffice, due to the explosion.
Where a .50 will punch through some concrete, and make a hole, a cannon shell is going to blow a fair sized chunk out of the wall.
Its more than just ammount of damage done, and blast radius, and simply adjusting the hardness will affect cannons which could do some real damage.
Take the BK 5, for example. It fires an HE round, and so doesn't penetrate a whole lot of armor. If you bump up the hardness, theres a chance it might start bouncing rounds off the dar tower, or bunker.
Or the Mk 108. It fires a shell large enough to do some not inconsiderable damage to a concrete wall. But it penetrates very little armor due to being both an HE round, and having a low velocity. Bumping up the hardness would unrealisitically and unintentionally nerf the 30mm as well.
The reason is that concrete is not the same as a steel bar, which is not the same as armor plate, which is not the same as a wooden flight deck.
Explosion? Remember, not all HE cannon rounds actually had explosives in them. Some simply were serrated and thinly skinned and were meant to shred apart upon contact with any medium thicker than air. :aok
-
Explosion? Remember, not all HE cannon rounds actually had explosives in them. Some simply were serrated and thinly skinned and were meant to shred apart upon contact with any medium thicker than air. :aok
how would anything be High Explosive without any explosive material to make it High Explosive???
<cough>fragmentation<cough>
*sorry, i just had to*
-
(http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/images/chfig2.jpg)
I would like to see larger RDF stations in AcesHigh, 1 mast doesn't look cool enough bring me 3 :D
-
how would anything be High Explosive without any explosive material to make it High Explosive???
<cough>fragmentation<cough>
*sorry, i just had to*
Legit question. However, how could anything with a pinch of explosive be termed "high" explosive? ;)
Also, Looschy pointed out something very important that has been mentioned previously: the hardness setting are %100 arbitrary, there is no set standards for what OBJ gets what hardness value unless like X plane is able to travel Y fast at Z altitude. Everything in regards to OBJ can be adjusted.
From past experiences in watching Hitech and others from HTC respond to issues like this, I'd be willing to bet they have put all things OBJ (non hangers and SB) at one low setting to allow the broadest number of aircraft and gv's to be able to destroy the OBJ in question. Hence, why the F4F and a P51D are on "equal" terms in ability to gun down a radar tower, ammo bunker, building, etc. Sure, the P51D can bring along almost 3000 lbs of ordnance for a major advantage, but again we're talking about the lowest common denominator in having 312 lbs of damage needed for the typical OBJ to be destroyed.
-
(http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/images/chfig2.jpg)
I would like to see larger RDF stations in AcesHigh, 1 mast doesn't look cool enough bring me 3 :D
go to the radar factory at strat city.
-
go to the radar factory at strat city.
The distance is too great for a 109E4B
-
The vulnerability to damage of the various surface targets is - I'm told - calculated for gameplay, not "realism." Perhaps HTC might chime in here to either confirm or refute that...?
just wish that dar towers were a bit tougher like a vh for eg. just seems like the effort taken to kill one far outweighs the disadvantage of not having dar
or alter the downtimes... what do you guys think ?
-
Legit question. However, how could anything with a pinch of explosive be termed "high" explosive? ;)
look up HMX...a "pinch" inside a 7.62mm round would make it high explosive ammunition because it increases the destructive power.
-
look up HMX...a "pinch" inside a 7.62mm round would make it high explosive ammunition because it increases the destructive power.
I'll crank my sarcasm dial a bit higher next time. Sorry. :aok
-
The vulnerability to damage of the various surface targets is - I'm told - calculated for gameplay, not "realism." Perhaps HTC might chime in here to either confirm or refute that...?
i think they made it quite obvious, it takes 3000lbs to kill a tin shed (VH), but 250lbs to kill a concrete bunker ("ords").
I think if you actually made radar harder to kill, it would discourage most new players.. because it is one of the first things a noob can do with bombs or rockets that he can actually see an immediate effect. the radar circle going from white to red. and it's the most conspicuous and least important target on a field, the big frickin tower. :)
-
common sense and WWII reports suggest radar antennae were hard to bring down but its always good to see film, so heres 3x RL radar stations being disabled using 500/1000lb bombs. check out the condition of the towers after the dust settles ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCLIw_s8eTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCLIw_s8eTA)
-
common sense and WWII reports suggest radar antennae were hard to bring down but its always good to see film, so heres 3x RL radar stations being disabled using 500/1000lb bombs. check out the condition of the towers after the dust settles ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCLIw_s8eTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCLIw_s8eTA)
I didn't watch the entire video, but it appears more to me that the target was everything around the tower(s) and not the tower(s) themselves. Makes sense, if only the tower wa destroyed them someone could technically sit on top of the nearest building holding a wire coat hanger and get a signal. :D
-
yeah same today as in WWII - the stuff you want to destroy is in armoured bunkers buried near the antenna, not the antenna itself.
I'd like to see this in AH - the antenna should be almost impossible to strafe down even with 30mm (I suspect the hitbox is currently solid, rather than the lattice that you see) and the real target is a bunker next to it, which like all bunkers should be destroyable by bombs only.
edit: otoh if we ever get mobile microwave radar with dish antenna like Wurzburg, then these would be very strafable.
-
I agree with what he is saying when straffing the DAR
Here is and exeriment you can try at home:
Step 1:
Build a tower out of thin steel cables in the shape of a radar tower
Step 2:
shoot with #7 birdshot from a 12 gauge shotgun
Step 3:
Light M80 underneath the tower
Results:
The shotgun does little damage because it passes through the open spaces of the tower where as the M80 destroys the tower because of the shockwave
My opinion is that bullets should do little damage the radar becuase most, in real life, pass through without hitting anything
if you don't belive me try it at home
This is why when I strafe radar, I aim for the base, not the tower. :airplane:
With rockets, it it different, a rocket will hit the tower and explode. My bullets will hit the base of the tower, and destroy it.